Christopher J. Portier, PhD, Director of the National Center for Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Christopher J. Portier, PhD, joined CDC in 2010 as the Director of the National Center for Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dr. Portier came to CDC from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), where he was the Senior Advisor to the Director and a Principal Investigator in environmental systems biology. Formerly, Dr. Portier was Associate Director of NIEHS, Director of the Environmental Toxicology Program at the NIEHS, and Associate Director of the National Toxicology Program.
Dr. Portier is an internationally recognized expert in the design, analysis, and interpretation of environmental health data. His research efforts and interests include such diverse topics as cancer biology, risk assessment, climate change, bioinformatics, immunology, neurodevelopment, genetically modified foods, and genomics. From 2000 to 2006, he managed the NTP and developed a strategic initiative that is internationally recognized for its innovation. He has contributed to the development of cancer risk assessment guidelines for national and international agencies and has either directed or contributed significantly to numerous risk assessments. He led the U.S. evaluation of electromagnetic fields by national and international scientists, which was the first comprehensive review in this field. Dr. Portier directed efforts of the U.S. government to develop a collaborative research agenda with Vietnam on the health effects of Agent Orange in that country. He has just directed a multiagency review of research needs for the health effects of climate change for the entire U.S. government. He has served as an advisor to the Finnish Academy of Sciences on the Centers of Excellence Research Program, as a member of World Health Organization/International Agency for Research on Cancer scientific committees, and as a reviewer for grants for the United States, the European Union, and many other grant-sponsoring organizations.
Abstracts for Thurs. June 2 Presentations
Phytoremediation has long been touted as an environmentally and community friendly technology to regulators and to responsible parties. However, the public health aspects of phytoremediation are often overlooked. These benefits are not insubstantial, and should be considered more when planning and developing phytoremediation projects. Not only is phytoremediation removing environmental contaminants, but can also engage the community in both the planning and execution of the site clean-up. This engagement allows the community members to feel that they are a part of the solution, rather than passive bystanders to a process that is being controlled by the very entities that caused the problem. This increases community well-being, and in itself is an important part of the health of the community that the remediation action is working to protect. This presentation will give firsthand accounts of how community members have taken active roles in phytoremediation projects, from inception to implementation to maintenance, and how this affected the community outlook about the work being done. In addition, case studies related to urban gardening will be discussed.
Dr. Newman is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Environmental and Forest Biology at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY-ESF). Her research interests involve the use of plants to deal with environmental problems. The most common form of this is phytoremediation, which is the use of plants to clean up environmental contaminants. She also has interests in the growth of plants for the production of energy; biomass, ethanol and biodiesel. She also has experience in investigating environmental toxicity resulting from plant exposure to toxicants, constructed wetland remediation, using microbes to enhance remediation potential of plants, using native plants for remediation and restoration, the role of plants in monitored natural attenuation and carbon sequestration.
The Federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has developed a software tool to assist state and local government rapidly review public health implications of contaminated sites targeted for reuse and related Brownfields redevelopment activities. This tool is an easy-to-use system that allows users to maintain an inventory of sites, store scanned site documents, calculate exposure doses based on user friendly pathway scenario selections, catalogue institutional controls, health concerns, violation, spills and maintain a "complaint log" to track site concerns. A “How To” guide is included on what to look for when conducting a site visit. The tool also includes a module to import analytical data and calculate doses, 95% upper confidence intervals, geometric mean, and other statistical parameters. The tool also analyzes data for Normal/Log Normal distributions and has a throughput of 10,000 data points per minute.
Gary Perlman is a Commander with the US Public Health Service. He currently works in the ATSDR Region One (New England) Office in Boston, MA. Gary obtained his MPH from Yale University School of Medicine in Environmental Health Science. Gary has 20 years experience in environmental health. He is a Registered Sanitarian, and an EMT-B. He has been deployed to eight public health emergencies ranging from Hurricane Katrina to chemical plan explosions.
Lee Newman, SUNY-ESF, Gary Perlman, ATSDR, Heather Henry, NIEHS, Marjorie Aelion, UMass Amherst Public Health, Meg Harvey and Sharee Major Rusnak, Connecticut Dept. Public Health, Marybeth Smuts, US EPA, Tarah Somers, ATSDR/USEPA New England
A panel discussion will conclude the “Human Health Impacts and Issues” sessions and will feature the session presenters as well as the organizers. The objective of the panel will be to identify the major challenges (and opportunities) related to green chemistry, as it pertains to human health. Collectively, the panelists bring to the discussion multiple perspectives: government (state and federal), academic, as well as our own interests as consumers and citizens. Audience participation is encouraged .
The remediation community is beginning to embrace a more holistic, or life-cycle perspective to maximize the sustainability of remediation treatment options. From an environmental perspective, life cycle assessment (LCA) is an established methodology that can provide insight into the overall environmental impacts of a remediation technology. It can provide quantitative results of the impacts to many environmental categories such as fossil fuel resources, mineral depletion, ecotoxicity, respiratory organics, ozone depletion, climate change, land use, and eutrophication potential.
A detailed analysis of the impacts of an in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) implementation for the treatment of a chlorinated solvent-contaminated groundwater will be presented. The in situ chemical oxidation remedy consists of injecting permanganate into the groundwater in order to oxidize the contaminants. The analysis included the acquisition and processing of raw materials and chemicals consumed during the remedy implementation, activities involved in the preparation of the site and the injection of the oxidant, resources and equipment necessary for two separate injection events, pre- and post- remedy sampling, and monitoring for the remedy. This LCA was performed retrospectively using actual data from a site undergoing active remediation. To date, few publicly available LCAs of ISCO implementations have been found.
This analysis was not performed for comparison of technologies for a specific site’s remedy but to analyze the environmental impacts attributable to an ISCO implementation. Although each site is unique, as a remediation community we can benefit from understanding what processes and materials from each of the most commonly used remediation technologies have the largest environmental impacts associated with them. The results of this ISCO LCA may be used to identify opportunities to decrease the environmental impacts of future similar remedy implementations.
Angela Fisher is an environmental engineer in the Environmental Technology Laboratory at General Electric's Global Research Center in Niskayuna, NY. For the past five years, she has worked on the remediation team in the areas of technology R&D and project management. Angela is also part of the Ecoassessment team at the Research Center where she conducts life cycle assessments (LCA) and sustainability analyses. She received her graduate degree in Environmental Engineering from The Pennsylvania State University, where her research focused microbial dissimilatory iron reduction with the long term goal of using it for the immobilization of heavy metals and radionuclides. Her current research interests include the development of sustainable approaches and the promotion of life cycle thinking throughout the remediation process.
Eaton Corporation, a premier diversified industrial manufacturer, holds financial reserve of $80 million dollars targeted at historical environmental liabilities. To manage these reserves, Eaton developed a process for evaluating remedial options. Selection criteria includes consideration of Green Remediation principles such as energy used, greenhouse gas generated, toxic emissions, water consumed, wastewater and waste generated We applied the process at a new remediation on a former Eaton site in Fletcher, North Carolina. A risk assessment followed by a treatment evaluation evaluated options for clean-up of chlorinated solvents. We selected a green alternative, using in-situ bioremediation, because it uses very little energy, produces very little greenhouse gas or toxic emissions, uses little water and generates no wastewater or waste. In-situ bioremediation has resulted in a more rapid and less costly cleanup, saving over $500,000 and more than 10 years when compared to more conventional clean-up technologies. The second example includes the evaluation of an existing remedial system at our Marshall, Michigan site. Eaton had operated a pump and treat system for more than 15 years to mitigate a chlorinated volatile organics groundwater plume. Again, a risk assessment followed by a treatment evaluation showed in-situ bioremediation as the best treatment alternative. Replacement of the pump and treat system with an in-situ bioremediation application, resulted in a 100% reduction in energy use, 95% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions showed a 100% reduction in toxics emissions, 95% reduction in water use and 100% reduction in wastewater generated and 100% reduction in waste generated. The in-situ bioremediation has also resulted in a savings of over one million dollars and more than 20 years when compared to continued operation of the pump and treat system. These examples illustrate that application of Green Remediation principles in remediation meets treatment goals, are embraced by the regulating authorities, reduces our environmental footprint, and saves time and money. A “triple bottom line” winner.
Steve Fesko is a Senior EHS Program Manager for Eaton Corporation which is based in Cleveland, Ohio. Steve has thirty years of experience in the field of EHS management and worked previously with BP as a Manager for its wholesale and distribution group. In his current role, Steve is responsible for development and implementation of environmental, health and safety procedures and practices and to ensure that all facilities are in compliance with applicable Federal, State and local laws and fulfillment of all Eaton Corporation Environment, Health and Safety objectives. Duties include conducting EHS assessments, training, technical consulting as well as strategic planning. Steve holds a Masters Degree in Sanitary Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil/Environmental Engineering from the University of Cincinnati. Steve is a Registered Professional Engineer in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Connecticut.
Removal and recycling of lead at a small arms firing range can be a sustainable and more cost effective method of managing lead at closed ranges and active ranges. Physical particle separation and gravity separation processes were used at former small arms firing ranges located at Camp Withycombe, Oregon to remove 270 tons of lead from approximately 27,000 tons of soil. The results from treatability studies were used to complete a Feasibility Study, documenting how incorporation of green remediation methods can reduce costs and reduce impacts to the natural environment. The goal of the project was to restore the land occupied by the former ranges to a beneficial use, including a nature park. The project included excavation of soil with a lead concentration greater than 400 mg/kg. Excavated soil was treated using a two stage dry soil screening process and wet gravity separation process for removal of particulate lead and bullets. Phosphate amendment was added to soil when needed to reduce the leachable lead concentration below the 5 mg/L TCLP limit for characterization as a hazardous waste. The separation and amendment technologies prevented transporting the 30,000 tons of soil to a hazardous waste landfill, with a cost savings of about $5M, and preventing 355,200 truck miles and 1.9 million pounds of CO2 from being discharged. In addition, instead of becoming a waste, the soil was reclaimed and reused for a beneficial use. Water was managed within the treatment plan, and was used for irrigation of new vegetation at project completion. The project demonstrated sustainable practices can be added into the remedial design process and used to decrease costs and provide additional benefits to the client and community. The project earned the 2009 Secretary of the Army Environmental Restoration Award.
Mr Kranz is a Senior Hydrogeologist at AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., in Portland, Oregon, where he has worked for more than 12 years. He obtained his MS in Hydrology/Hydrogeology from the University of Nevada, Reno.
To date, groundwater remediation optimization efforts under Superfund have focused on well-characterized sites with comprehensive Conceptual Site Models (CSMs). Optimization strategies have typically relied on high quality datasets from sites with low uncertainty in order to support reduction in remediation and monitoring effort. Understandably, many of these sites are closer to cleanup goals than less well-characterized sites. Optimization often results in moving sites even closer to goals by leveraging data to conclusively document low-risk conditions. For this reason, optimization evaluations are becoming closely linked with a dialog on the development of realistic exit strategies.
Often, sites with extensive remediation, including elimination of source material, low risk to potential receptors and institutional controls (ICs) cannot achieve closure because groundwater concentrations hover slightly above cleanup goals at a limited number of locations. Specific closure requirements for such low-risk groundwater sites are often poorly defined or absent from many regulatory programs. Few programs specify acceptable statistical methods and data sufficiency standards to demonstrate attainment of goals. Optimization efforts at low-risk sites often result in recommendations to reduce sampling, reporting frequency and energy-intensive remediation. Regulatory requirements are not always flexible enough to accommodate reduced effort in the absence of full closure.
Realistic exit strategies would manage goals and expectations for the site by acknowledging factors such as long-term, slow release of contaminants, achievable remedial performance and time-frames, site re-use and ICs that influence long-term site risks. These same factors are frequently cited in remedy optimization and sustainability reviews to relate cost and effort to risk. Realistic exit strategies include specific metrics for documenting attainment of site cleanup goals as well as identification of ‘trigger points’ for contingent remedies. Establishment of realistic or tiered exit strategies would provide focus to remedial and monitoring optimization efforts, and offer incentive for cleanup and improved efficiency of site management.
Dr. Vanderford is a Senior Associate Environmental Scientist at GSI Environmental, Inc. in Houston, TX. She has technical experience in the chemical analysis and environmental fate of munitions, chlorinated solvents and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Dr. Vanderford received a Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences and Engineering from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and M.S. and undergraduate degrees from Rice University. Her project experience includes optimization of long-term groundwater monitoring networks, human and ecological risk assessment, monitored natural attenuation evaluation, and the application of geographic information system (GIS) tools. She is currently managing the MAROS software for GSI and has extensive experience using decision matrices and statistical methods to analyze and optimize groundwater monitoring networks. She has developed and conducted classes in Long-Term Monitoring Optimization for the USEPA, DoD and several state environmental agencies. Her current research interests include developing statistical methods to support the transition to less energy intensive remedial strategies and applying compound-specific isotope analysis to document biodegradation of contaminants.
There is a growing trend towards Green and Sustainable Remediation (GSR) practices in the United States. Consensus has not been achieved on several aspects of GSR applications including the incorporation of environmental, social, and economical topics, the definition of green versus sustainable, and the amount of influence GSR metrics and assessments should have on the remedy selection. However, there is a growing list of GSR technologies and approaches that are increasing in popularity independent of the issues above. In general, GSR technologies and approaches can be broken into tools, practices, and applications.
Popular GSR tools include decision trees, calculators, and assessment schemes all aimed at providing an estimation of the impact of a remedy on the local and/or global commune. Common GSR practices include best management practices such as soil/waste management, the use of low-impact design principles, and the incorporation of end use forethought into remedy selection and design. GSR applications offer the broadest selection and include in-situ technologies, renewable energy use, material recycling/reuse, low-impact/remote monitoring, specialized materials/equipment use (e.g., low-sulfur diesel fuel), and emerging technologies (e.g., carbon mats or advanced soil washing).
This presentation offers a description of the popular GSR tools, practices, and applications in use today including a discussion of the applicable implementation of each along with the associated pros and cons. Six case studies further illustrate the implementation of popular GSR tools, practices, and applications by providing real project experiences and results.
Scott McDonough is an environmental engineer at AECOM. Mr. McDonough graduated with a B.S. in Civil Engineering and an M.B.A in Environmental Management from Clarkson University. Since graduation Mr. McDonough has gained real world experience in implementing green & sustainable tools and practices and is currently involved in developing AECOM’s NYSDEC DER-31 compliance program.
Environmental impacts and timeframes of remediation scenarios for chloroethene-contaminated sites
Gitte Lemming1, Michael Hauschild1, Julie Chambon1, Philip Binning1, Cécile Bulle2 and Manuele Margni2, Poul Bjerg1;1Technical University of Denmark, DTU; 2CIRAIG, École Polytechnique de Montréal
Assessing the sustainability of remedial actions requires a solid quantification of environmental impacts associated with the remediation technologies considered. Another important input to the sustainability assessment is the estimation of remediation timeframes for reaching the defined remedial target.
Environmental impacts resulting from the remedial actions at a site were quantified using life cycle assessment (LCA). LCA is an established and systematic method for assessment of environmental impacts related to a defined function. It includes and compares a wide range of environmental impacts caused by the remediation activities such as global warming potential, acidification potential, human toxicity potential, ecotoxicity potential etc. Therefore it gives a more complete and holistic comparison than assessment methods focusing only on single indicators such as “carbon footprint”.
Site-specific numerical transport models were used to estimate the mass discharge from the contaminant source in the baseline scenario (no remediation) and a number of remediation scenarios. These results were used to predict remedial timeframes to reach a predefined remedial target. Furthermore they provided important inputs as a design parameters of the different remediation systems compared and constituted the basis for estimating the local toxic emission to groundwater including formation of degradation products.
The assessment of timeframes and environmental impacts related to remediation was applied to two case studies, which both represents clay till sites contaminated with trichloroethene (TCE). For Site 1, the following remediation techniques were compared: (1a) in situ enhanced bioremediation, (1b) in situ thermal remediation, and (1c) excavation and ex situ treatment. For Site 2, two different low-energy in situ remediation methods were compared: (2a) in situ enhanced bioremediation, and (2b) in situ chemical oxidation.
The results of the assessment gives important inputs to the sustainability assessment of the considered remediation alternatives and may be incorporated into a decision support system including all aspects of sustainability.
Gitte Lemming is a postdoctoral fellow at the Department of Environmental Engineering at the Technical University of Denmark. She obtained her Ph.D. in 2010 and her research revolves around decision-support systems for holistic assessment of contaminated site remediation options including life cycle assessments (LCA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA).
There are over 100,000 licensed child care centers in the United States; however, very few states have licensing requirements for child care centers to have environmental assessments. Some redevelopment sites may be perfectly safe for children while other sites may raise concerns. The presentation will first provide an overview of child care licensing regulations across the country. Several cases studies of child care centers place on or near hazardous sites will be described. The presentation will then focus on Connecticut’s SAFER program, a non-regulatory approach that helps balance the need for sustainable redevelopment with the need to place child care centers on safe sites. The presentation will also discuss what environmental professionals can do to help ensure that child care centers are SAFER.
Sharee Major Rusnak, MSPH, ScD works for the Environmental and Occupational Health Assessment Program of the Connecticut Department of Public Health. The Daycare SAFER Program is funded through the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) through a cooperative agreement. Sharee is the project coordinator for the Daycare SAFER program which has been in place for almost 4 years.
School buildings are fundamental components of the educational process and children spend more time in schools than in any other environment except their home. Across the nation, nearly one in five Americans spend time in schools, both public and private. These schools may be subject to pollution from indoor and outdoor sources. Schools have been closed due to indoor pollution and new schools have never been occupied due to environmental contamination on the site. EPA developed Tools for Schools to address indoor sources. Where a school is sited depends on local factors, such as health and safety, location, access, size and cost among many other factors. EPA has developed voluntary guidelines to provide a framework to help communities consider and balance environmental risks and community benefits in siting new schools. This presentation will give an overview of the US EPA School Siting Guidelines and discuss principles behind the guidelines and the limitations of the guidelines.
Dr. Marybeth Smuts works for the US Environmental Protection Agency Regional Office in Boston as the Regional Air Toxicologist. In this capacity she provides technical assistance to the Regional office and the New England states on the health impacts of toxic air pollution both inside and outside. Dr. Smuts has received EPA’s Gold medal for her work on EPA’s Tools for Schools and other awards for her work on the new EPA program Communities Actions for a Renewed Environment (CARE), Green and Healthy Homes and Air Risk Assessment.
To help increase energy efficiency, people are turning to products such as sprayed polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation. The SPF is made by combining two liquid chemicals that react and form the foam material. Some of the chemicals used in the products, especially in their pre-cured form, are known to have health effects. Although SPF maybe a great insulator and considered a “green” product because of its energy efficiency, care must be taken with application to ensure that residents, especially children, are not harmed by the product. This presentation will first discuss SPF, how it works and the chemical used in creating the foam. Then a discussion will follow on how these chemicals and mis-application of the product can lead to exposures and health effects. Case studies will be used to help illustrate the health issues of exposure to sprayed foam insulation.
Meg Harvey supervises the Site Assessment and Chemical Risks Unit at the CT Department of Public Health. This unit addresses health concerns at hazardous waste sites through a cooperative agreement grant from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Ms. Harvey has a Masters Degree in Public Health and has been with the CT Department of Public Health for 11 years.
CDM is using sustainable remediation principles and practices to optimize the social, environmental, and economic benefits of a contaminated recreational area cleanup. An important social objective is restoring the recreational area. Any remedy must also meet environmental risk criteria while minimizing costs. At issue is how to control the source material, a metallic slag from a secondary lead smelter that was placed on the coastline for erosion control. In the ensuing decades, heavy metals have leached and eroded from the slag, contaminating the nearby recreational area. The slag fails the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) test for lead, and therefore is a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). If the slag is removed, it must be treated as hazardous waste.
The conference presentation will focus on CDM’s process for identifying sustainable remedial solutions for the source material. Transporting the slag and disposing of it in a hazardous waste landfill will likely be an uneconomical and unsustainable solution. Instead, CDM has been exploring options for recycling or reuse of the slag. These options include: selling the slag on the market as construction aggregate, smelting the slag to extract the residual and marketable metals, returning the metal to a lead smelter, or combining the slag (along with contaminated sediments) in a concrete mix for reuse. The fact that the slag fails TCLP greatly restricts the potential sustainable remedial alternatives. A promising solution may be a specially formulated stabilizing concrete mix that reduces metals leaching to sub-TCLP levels. In the coming months, CDM will be evaluating the potential incorporation of stabilizing concrete mixes into sustainable remedial alternatives.
Chris Gurr is an environmental engineer with CDM Inc. in New York City. He is an active member of CDM project teams for remedial investigations and feasibility studies for contaminated sites in New York and New Jersey. His areas of expertise include fate and transport, contaminated sediments, treatment technologies, and data & statistics. He has a BS in chemistry from the University of Virginia and MS/ENG degrees in environmental engineering and science from Stanford University.
In-situ enhanced reductive dechlorination (ERD) of chlorinated alkenes is a demonstrated green remedial strategy for treating dissolved- and residual-phase chlorinated volatile organic compounds (cVOCs). In general, the use of commercial ERD additives is standard industry practice at many cVOC sites in the United States and internationally where ERD is the selected remedy. This presentation will focus upon the use of carbohydrate-based waste/off-spec materials to enhance the in-situ reductive dechlorination of cVOCs, turning a green remedial technology even greener.
The advantages of using carbohydrate-based waste materials for ERD applications are threefold:
1) They have high organic carbon content, which can scavenge competing electron acceptors from a cVOC plume and be readily fermented to yield the volatile fatty acids and molecular hydrogen that “fuel’ the dechlorination process,
2) These materials can often be readily obtained at a fraction of the monetary cost of commercial additives thereby reducing remedial costs, and
3) They are sometimes destined for disposal at a municipal landfill; hence, recycling them for use in environmental remediation projects conserves landfill space.
The presentation will summarize three successful case studies where waste/off-spec materials were used as remedial additives for ERD projects. At one site, both off-spec and waste materials were used at a manufacturing site, where a single injection destroyed a trichloroethene (TCE) dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) source and reduced TCE concentrations by 99.99 percent in groundwater, achieving non detectable limits. Concentrations of cVOCs were reduced to regulatory limits at a former wastewater treatment facility using off-spec and waste materials. The third site included the use of off-spec materials to achieve cVOC groundwater cleanup objectives at a middle school construction site.
Paul Pepler, EIT is a Project Engineer with GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. He obtained his BS in Environmental Science from the University of New Hampshire in 2007, and his MS in Civil Engineering in 2009. His past research has included topics in ecology, biogeochemistry, and water treatment. His current research interests include the intrinsic and enhanced biological degradation of petroleum and chlorinated solvent groundwater contaminants in the US and internationally.
Former chrome plating operations resulted in the release of chromic acid into soil and groundwater at a facility in central Indiana. Hexavalent chromium (Cr+6) concentrations up to 7,900 mg/kg were reported in soil. Impacted soils were primarily glacial till with some sand lenses and consisted of a primary source area of approximately 7,000 square feet to 15 feet below grade level (bgl) and a secondary area of about 8,000 sqft to 5 feet bgl. Past operations also impacted the uppermost aquifer (15 feet to 35 feet bgl) in an area of about 64,000 sqft with Cr+6 reported at concentrations up to 9,312 mg/L.
In Situ Geochemical Reduction (ISCR) was selected as a cost effective remedial solution. ISCR is based on reducing the highly soluble Cr+6 to the slightly solubility, non-toxic trivalent chromium. Bench testing identified ferrous sulfide (FeS) as the chemical reductant for both soil and groundwater.
The FeS was developed as a nanoscale FeS aqueous-based suspension (nFeS), amended with an additional 2% free sulfide to simulate calcium sodium polysulfide. In lieu of virgin chemical feedstock, the nFeS was derived from industrial waste byproducts of the steel (ferrous chloride and ferrous sulfate), aluminum anodizing (sodium hydroxide), and refining industries (sodium hydrosulfide).
In Situ soil mixing was conducted using an excavator mounted Dual-Axis soil mixer with about 80,000 gallons of nFeS being mixed into 5,370 cubic yards of soils. Groundwater treatment consisted of a single 37,000 gallon injection event of nFeS at 153 injection points across the plume (15 ft radius of influence) into saturated units of the aquifer.
Confirmatory soil sampling indicated the complete reduction of Cr+6 to <0.01 mg/Kg in one application. 1st Quarter groundwater sampling indicated a general 98 – 100% reduction of Cr+6, with limited areas that may require a possible second treatment prior to closure.
Richard Christensen is a Senior Project Manager at Acuity Environmental Solutions (AcuityES) located in Fishers, IN and an Adjunct Professor at Excelsior College, Albany, NY. He obtained his BS in Geology from Grand Valley State College in 1984, his MS in Hydrogeology from Western Michigan University in 1987, and his PhD in Science Technology and Society (STS) from the Union Institute and University in 2004. He joined AcuityES in 2009 after employment at Michael Baker Engineers, Camp Dresser McKee (CDM) and August Mack Environmental. AcuityES manages and completes remediation and environmental compliance contracts throughout the United States. At AcuityES his clientele has included international and Fortune 500 firms, law firms, and the United States Department of Defense (specifically the Base Realignment and Closure program or BRAC).
Translating sustainable principles into effective remediation projects
David Wandor, The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan; Catherine Creber, The Dow Chemical Company, Sarnia, Ontario; Paul Favara, CH2M HILL, Gainesville, FL
In 2006 the Dow Chemical Company established Dow’s 2015 Sustainability Goals. While all seven of the goals can be directly or indirectly applied to remediation projects, four of the goals (Local Protection of Human Health and the Environment, Energy Efficiency, Addressing Climate Change, and Contributing to Community Success) represent particular opportunities for Dow to deliver remediation projects in a greener and more sustainable manner. These goals also align with EPA’s core green remediation principles, other frameworks currently being developed by the American Society of Testing Methods (ASTM) and Interstate Technical and Regulatory Council (ITRC).
This presentation will emphasize the application of sustainability principles throughout the life of a remediation project. Translating these principles into results involves new approaches to projects, one that is not constrained by past practices. Coupling a “remove all inefficiencies” mindset with sustainability principles, have resulted in projects with a substantial reduction or elimination of waste, carbon dioxide emissions, and power usage. Project case studies that have benefited communities world-wide with enhanced eco-systems will be utilized to illustrate these results.
The presentation will be instructive to individuals who are interested in translating overarching organizational goals into remediation activities and want to see examples of successful deployment of green and sustainable remediation activities.
David Wandor is a global remediation technology manager for The Dow Chemical Company. Upon graduation from Michigan State University, with a B.S. in Chemical Engineering, he joined The Dow Chemical Company. For 30 years Dave has been with The Dow Chemical Company and has spent the last 17 years in technical and managerial roles in the environmental area. David has focused on the application of in-situ-bio and phytoremediation in addition to other natural remediation technologies.
Integrating the soil function concept and multi-criteria analysis for sustainable remediation of contaminated land
Yevheniya Volchko, Chalmers University of Technology; Magnus Bergknut, Umeå University of Technology; Lars Rosén, Chalmers University of Technology; Jenny Norman, Chalmers University of Technology
Soil is a multifunctional media that has an ability to provide both vital services to human activities and several functions essential to ecosystems, e.g. source for nutrients and storage of water. The functions provided by soil are crucial for human well-being and ecosystem survival and maintenance of these soil functions is the basis for sustainable use of soils. The functions of soil are extremely diverse; however, some main functions have been recognized by the EC and framed into the soil function concept (SFC). The promotion of SFC on high political level aims to ensure sustainable use of soil by means of prevention of threats to soils and restoration of degraded soils to a level of functionality consistent with the current or future land use. Soil contamination is a threat which may dramatically hinder the soil’s ability to function, and often results in the contaminated soil being remediated. The remediation may however in itself result in negative consequences for the environment, and several remediation strategies do not consider SFC. Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) is a powerful decision-making support tool for assessment the benefits and impacts of alternative remedial actions in terms of environmental, economic and socio-cultural indicators, and has repeatedly been suggested for evaluating the sustainability of available remediation alternatives. The purpose of the paper is to present how SFC and MCA can be integrated and how the SFs be evaluated and scored in the MCA to assess the sustainability of different remediation solutions.
Yevehniya Volchko is a Doctoral Candidate at Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden since January, 2010. She is a Licentiate degree holder since 2010 and has completed her post-graduate studies at Kyiv National University of Construction and Architecture, Kyiv, Ukraine in 2009. Her background is land management; she obtained Master’s degree of Science with a major in the Built Environment at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden in 2008. Her research interests include sustainability assessment of remedial alternatives; economic and legal aspects of remediation.
Increasing energy costs and goals of transitioning to cleaner forms of energy have led the US Air Force (USAF) to explore utilization of renewable energy (RE) sources as power supplies for existing and future environmental remediation systems. The need to provide power to remediation systems that are located in remote regions also makes use of RE attractive since grid-based power can be difficult to provide in those areas.
An Excel™-based tool named “CleanSWEEP” was developed to evaluate the applicability of converting small-scale environmental remediation systems from grid-based power to RE. The tool considers variables such as geographic-based solar radiation and wind potential, financial return on investment, power demand, and impacts of periodic downtime on remedial system performance and overall protectiveness. Additionally, the tool estimates the net benefit on overall environmental impacts realized by using RE instead of non-renewable sources. This estimate considers both the benefits of using RE as well as the drawbacks of manufacturing, delivering, installing, and disposing of the RE source itself. By entering very basic site information into the tool, a user can ascertain the viability and overall benefit/drawback of converting existing remedial systems to either wind or solar powered sources or of designing new such systems at favorable locations.
A USAF database was queried to identify sites that had existing remedies which consumed relatively low quantities of energy and remote sites at which RE sources could be used. Several of these sites were used to beta-test the tool and to develop a short-list of candidate sites at which conversion to RE would potentially be cost-effective while maintaining overall protectiveness and continuing to achieve remedial action objectives.
This presentation presents an overview of the energy tool functionality and describes the results of the screening level assessment of target candidate sites.
John Tunks is a Senior Technologist at CH2M Hill in Denver. He obtained his B.A. in Geology at Colgate University in 1991 and his M.S. in Hydrogeology at Duke University in 1993. During his approximate 20 year career as an environmental consultant, Mr. Tunks has worked for various clients across government and industry with particular focus supporting environmental remediation led by the US Air Force and the Department of Defense. In his current role as leader of the Sustainable Remediation Community of Practice at CH2M Hill, Mr. Tunks is helping to promote and expand the use of sustainable practices throughout the remediation industry. He has extensive experience in Remedial Process Optimization and is the developer of CleanSWEEP, a decision and design tool for evaluating the use of renewable energy in environmental remediation systems.
A new green and sustainable remediation concept, the horizontal in-well treatment (HIT) system, is presented that utilizes horizontal wells filled with reactive media to passively treat contaminated groundwater in-situ. The wells, oriented parallel to the direction of groundwater flow, passively draw impacted groundwater into the upgradient portions of the well due to transmissivity contrasts and flow-focusing. Entrained groundwater is completely treated as it flows through reactive media within the horizontal well, then exits the well along down-gradient sections with significant mass reductions obtained at timescales orders of magnitude less than conventional treatment methods. Different types of reactive media can be used (zero valent iron, activated carbon, ion exchange resins, zeolite, phosphate, chitin, etc.); therefore, the HIT system is applicable to a wide range of contaminants. A series of three-dimensional flow and transport simulations were performed with MODFLOW and MT3D to assess the hydraulic performance, capture width, and treatment effectiveness of the concept. The results demonstrate that capture widths greater than 50 feet can be achieved, and significant reductions in down-gradient concentrations and mass discharge occur almost immediately. Compared to other remedial alternatives, the HIT system has several green and sustainable attributes that contribute to the triple bottom line (environmental, social and economic benefits). The passive in-situ approach greatly reduces carbon footprint and recurring and cumulative energy demands. Material consumption and the cradle-to-grave liability of onsite waste generation are low. Because the system does not require groundwater extraction, life-cycle water consumption is essentially zero. The above-ground infrastructure is negligible, which has positive social impacts. From an economic perspective, the annual and life-cycle costs are substantially lower than most conventional alternative remedial strategies, particularly if remedial performance goals are focused on reducing risk through eliminating contaminant mass discharge. General criteria for site applicability and practical implementation challenges will also be discussed.
Tracy Roth is a Senior Hydrogeologist at ARCADIS U.S., Inc. in Manchester, Connecticut. She obtained a BS in Geology from Northeastern University in 1993, and an MS in Hydrology at The New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in 1996. With more than 15 years in consulting services, she specializes in quantitative hydrogeologic analysis with a focus on groundwater flow and solute transport modeling in support of remediation projects, litigation, and property development for Sites located throughout the United States. She is a registered Professional Geologist in the State of California.
Enbridge Energy Partners LLP (Enbridge) reported a 30-inch pipeline ruptured on Monday, July 26, 2010, near Marshall, Michigan. The release estimated at 819,000 gallons entered Talmadge Creek and flowed into the Kalamazoo River, a Lake Michigan tributary. Heavy rains caused the river to overtop existing dams and carried oil 30 miles downstream on the Kalamazoo River. On July 28, 2010, the spill was contained approximately 80 river miles from Lake Michigan. On July 27, the day after the spill was reported, EPA issued a legal order under the authority of the Clean Water Act directing Enbridge to conduct removal actions. EPA also ordered the company to produce documents and information relevant to EPA's investigation into the source, extent and nature of the oil spill.
As the federal agency in charge of the response to the Enbridge Oil Spill, EPA assumed a leadership role in the Unified Command and mobilized an Incident Management Team made up of federal, state and local agencies. The presenter was the Incident Commander for the EPA during this response. During the response subsurface oil was addressed, a Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Team (SCAT) was deployed along the 40 miles of impacted stream and shoreline, wildlife was captured, treated and released, the quality of the local surface water and groundwater was investigated, and ecological restoration was initiated and in most areas completed with an agreement for the operation and maintenance of oil collection and additional clean-up protocols in place.
See Kovak and Gallo bios below
Safety lessons learned during the BP and Enbridge oil spill responses
Brian Kovak, US Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Response Team, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
This presentation provides an overview of the safety programs developed during oil spill responses and some of the lessons learned from their application to oil spill clean-up activities. During the late spring of 2010, the presenter was deployed to the Gulf as part of the U.S. EPA Environmental Response Team to assist with the BP oil spill response. While supervising the air monitoring activities for EPA Region 4, it became readily apparent that BP was in need of assistance in managing the safety and health program for the thousands of workers involved in the clean-up activities. We developed the safety program for EPA as the assigned EPA Safety Officer for the Unified Command.
In addition, we were then deployed to Michigan to manage the safety program at the Kalamazoo River/Enbridge oil spill response. At this site we incorporated the safety programs and decontamination procedures developed during the BP oil spill response and applied them to the clean-up strategies and techniques being used at the Enbridge spill response.
Brian Kovak is an Environmental Scientist with the U.S.EPA Environmental Response Team. He is the Designated Safety, Health and Environmental Management Official for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Brian is a Registered Professional Industrial Hygienist and has been practicing industrial hygiene and safety and health management for over 25 years. His undergraduate Degree is in Agricultural Sciences from Penn State University and his graduate education is in Environmental Biology at Clarion University and Public Health at Tulane University. Brian is a retired U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Officer and served as an Environmental Health Officer and Industrial Hygienist with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and with EPA Region 3 as their Safety and Health Manager. Brian also served as an Environmental Science Officer with the U.S. Army. Brian was the EPA Safety Officer during the 9/11 response at the Pentagon, the Capitol Hill Anthrax response, Ricin response, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and most recently for the BP Oil Spill and the Kalamazoo River/Enbridge Oil Spill response. He is a Co-Chair of the National Response Team (NRT) Worker Safety and Health Sub-Committee.
This Presentation will focus on the necessity of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct oversight of responsible parties during high profile emergency responses. When does our capacity to audit interfere with our ability to maintain operation control? When does our operation become repetitive and not beneficial to our response goals? Should the EPA move toward more oversight and less response action? This topic will draw from experiences and lessons learned from both the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill as well as the Enbridge Oil Spill where the EPA conducted both its own response operation and functioned in an oversight capacity.
Christopher Gallo is an Environmental Scientist for the EPA’s Environmental Response Team (ERT). The ERT is based out of Edison, NJ, Cincinnati, Ohio, Research Triangle Park, NC and Las Vegas, NV and provides support to On Scene Coordinators and Remedial Project Managers through-out EPA’s 10 regions. Chris received his Bachelor’s Degree of Chemistry with a concentration Biochemistry from Villanova University in Villanova, PA. Before he came to the EPA, Chris was a Hazmat/WMD/Instrument Specialist in the New York City Department of Environmental Protection’s Division of Emergency Response and Technical Assessment. He has worked in the field of emergency response for 5 years.
Green and sustainable remediation (GSR) technologies are of increasing interest to a variety of stakeholders. Bioelectrochemical (BEC) systems have the potential to achieve GSR principals. The most common BEC system is a Microbial Fuel Cell (MFC). In conventional applications, MFCs generate electricity by harnessing the electrons produced by bacterial metabolism and directing their flow through a circuit consisting of an anode, cathode, and resistor to produce electrical current.
This presentation describes the development of a BEC system for in-situ remediation of hydrocarbon impacted sites. This system includes the subsurface installation of an anode and cathode in contact with groundwater. The circuit is completed when bacteria metabolize hydrocarbons, release electrons to the anode, and the electrons flow to the cathode through a resistor where they combine with oxygen to produce a small amount of water.
With this approach, a perpetual electron acceptor is left in the field to promote the biodegradation of contaminants. Since most bioremediation projects are electron acceptor limited, this is a way to provide electron acceptors without having to inject commonly used amendments such as controlled release oxygen or sulfate; or by operating a mechanical air injection system. BEC remediation is green and sustainable since no energy is required to run the system (in fact a small amount is produced) and a properly designed system functions with little maintenance.
A laboratory test using soil and groundwater from a petroleum contaminated site was set-up with an active BEC system reactor and a control reactor with no active treatment. The test reactors were run for 90 days. A field pilot test was set-up by installing five BEC systems within a network of groundwater monitoring wells.
The laboratory test results showed DRO concentrations reduced from 94 mg/l to ND in 13 days and GRO reduced from 93 mg/l to 1 mg/l in 86 days. Voltage in the BEC system ranged from 0.1 to 3.4 mV, indicating bacterial activity during the test period. Preliminary results from field testing indicate bacterial activity with voltage readings ranging from 0 to 3.5 mV. Contaminant data from the field test will also be presented.
Mr. Nelson has twenty-five years of experience in environmental consulting, technology development, and management. His experience includes working for large and small consulting companies and with commercial and government clients. He successfully developed and demonstrated some of the first bioremediation and in-situ oxidation technologies and he has provided technical oversight on over 500 projects located around the world. More recently he has been focused on green and sustainable remediation technologies including phytoremediation and microbial fuel cell technology. Mr. Nelson has authored over 50 professional publications and presentations. He has a B.S. in Industrial Engineering, a M.S. in Environmental Engineering, and he is a licensed Professional Engineer.
In 2009, ERM constructed an electrically powered dosing system to prepare injection concentrations from stock sodium permanganate solutions (40% NaMnO4) and apply the dilute solution into a network of nine bedrock injection monitoring wells, enhanced with three infiltration trenches installed at the approximate top of bedrock. System improvements were conducted in the Spring of 2010 to continue seasonal applications while decreasing the environmental footprint of the ISCO operations. The 2010 improvements involved the installation of rainwater harvesting and solar power generation to continue unattended operations focused upon delivering a sustained dilute oxidant concentration and liquid flush to further expand the treatment area over a five-month period.
System upgrades included the installation of:
• Rainwater harvesting system to capture water for operations, eliminating the need for potable water deliveries or extension of water service,
• Increased use of high-efficiency VDC pumps and motors, replacing less efficient VAC pumps, and
• Rooftop solar array (2.4 kW) and control system to supply anticipated power for all system operations.
These system upgrades, coupled with wireless telemetry, PLC control and data logging, and remote operator control and monitoring, facilitated a decrease in operator oversight and corresponding costs of operation, while maximizing the use of renewable resources. This location illustrates how this approach may be used on similar remedial systems to decrease the environmental footprint associated with remedial operations.
Mr. Timothy D'Apice is a Senior Project Scientist for Environmental Resources Management (ERM) in Boston, Massachusetts. He holds an AS in Electrical Engineering (1996), as well as a BS in Computer Science (1999) from Wentworth Institute of Technology in Boston, Massachusetts.
Mr. D'Apice has 13 years experience working in an environmental consulting environment and 9 years as an Instrumentation and Process Controls professional. Mr. D'Apice specializes in the scope, specification, design-build, programming, and remote telemetry aspects of a process. He scripts automated process control systems using a variety of languages, and also is responsible for the design and programming of operator interfaces, as well as historical data products for business and/or compliance use, such as greenhouse gas detection and reporting.
Mr. D'Apice has recently been working with Sustainable Energy products, and has completed autonomous control processes utilizing collected rain water, solar energy capture and storage, passive venting, variable power by demand, and BioGas-to-Energy generation. Mr. D'Apice is currently developing more sustainable processes solutions for environmental remediation and industrial energy generation, and is a current member of the International Society of Automation (ISA) Boston Chapter.
A service station site in Bedford New Hampshire is being remediated using “green” bioreactor technology to minimize both power consumption and CO2 foot print. A release of over 600 gallons of MtBE-laden gasoline occurred to the bedrock aquifer in 2003. Following removal of the floating product, investigation of the aquifer showed excessive permeability in the upper bedrock (migmatized, weathered pegmatite; seepage velocities of up to 40 feet per day). The initial remedial solution included a pre-treatment system for inorganic removal, an air stripper for BTEX removal, a fluidized bed bioreactor for removal of oxygenates, and carbon polishing. This system operated from 2004 through 2007, and was modified in 2006 to inject the treated groundwater into an infiltration gallery adjacent to the source area. This gallery provided groundwater in the source area that was supersaturated with up to 20 mg/l of dissolved oxygen, and excess, overflow bacteria from the bioreactor.
Following a system shutdown from 2007 through 2009, the system was re-started using the bioreactor as the only remedial component. The final remedial solution included two symbiotic remedial components: 1) an ex-situ bioreactor for treatment of extracted groundwater, development of biomass and oxygenation of treated water and, 2) in-situ bioremediation stimulated by re-injecting the treated, oxygenated groundwater containing with excess nutrients and site-acclimated bacteria from the bioreactor. The final solution utilizes only four separate energy consuming components,, namely: the extraction well pumps (typically 3), a single recirculation pump to sustain the bioreactor, an oxygen super-saturating apparatus for the discharge water, and a discharge pump, resulting in a highly efficient system with low energy demands.
Armand A. Juneau, Jr., P.G, Principal of Juneau Geoservices, LLC, has 24 years of experience in conducting soil and groundwater investigations and conducting various groundwater and soil remediation projects throughout New England, the eastern and southern U.S., Canada, and in the Caribbean. He was the primary consultant/contractor for the design/construction/operation of the Site. Mr. Juneau is a licensed Professional Geologist in the State of New Hampshire and a Certified Geologist in the State of Maine.
Over half the global human population is now urbanized with the most rapidly growing cities located in the developing world. Urban sprawl continues to disperse urban travel destinations thereby generating high carbon emissions from cities. Industrial relocation is generating a preponderance of derelict inner-urban land.
An important component of remediation is Brownfields development’s evolution from a tool for ongoing environmental and public health protection to a tool for sustainable urban renewal and urban carbon emission reduction.
Brownfield site development is directly compatible with other sustainable urban renewal options including green building, low impact develop practices, smart growth (urban consolidation), preservation of parks and open space, transit-oriented development, and pollution reduction.
Australian, European and US case-studies describe Brownfield development-based benefits for urban housing; jobs; infrastructure; social inclusion; and climate change mitigation. Adoption of Brownfield policies and market incentives offers both western countries and the global South an economically and socially attractive mechanism for fair access to global climate change accords.
Targeted Brownfields remediation provides economically and socially effective approaches to directly reducing urban carbon emissions on a large scale, thereby raising two important questions:
-Why should cities not be eligible for carbon credits for transport planning improvement and for planning approaches which deliver effective anti-sprawl and carbon emission reduction outcomes?
-Would developing countries embrace urban-based approaches to carbon emissions reduction as a post-Copenhagen circuit-breaker accelerating accord development?
Potential Brownfields policy opportunities include targeted government Brownfield remediation funding and developer incentives (e.g. funding for liability insurance, including revolving loan funding mechanisms) and planning regulation policy improvement (approvals fast-tracking, improved floorspace ratios etc.) which, while cost-neutral for government, attract significant private financial investment to the city.
Mr. Albrecht is an associate vice president in AECOM's Northeast Region and a licensed environmental professional in the State of Connecticut. He has over 19 years experience in planning, conducting, and managing groundwater investigations, ecological and human health risk assessments, modeling, and remediation, as well as Phase I through III environmental investigations and remedial actions. Mr. Albrecht has conducted historical land use studies associated with property transfers as well as subsurface contamination assessments and remediation in wetland and terrestrial environments. His primary focus is developing client focused integrated remediation solutions with brownfield redevelopment plans. He has provided technical input for various Brownfield projects throughout the United States, including projects in Connecticut, California, Florida, Illinois, and Massachusetts as well as Shanghai, China
Redevelopment of the 8-acre former Tileston & Hollingsworth Paper Company as a retail shopping center involved demolition of a majority of the brick and masonry facility, crushing of 50,000 cy of demolition rubble under a MassDEP BUD Permit; and placement of excavated soils and recycled brick and concrete as compacted fill materials to support proposed buildings, pavement areas, and achieve 5 to 9 ft. raises in grade. Historical items found in the former water-powered facility, some of which dated to the late 1700s, were preserved for future display.
Remedial activities included: excavation of 5,000 cy of petroleum contaminated soils, on-site cement batching in a pug mill, and placement of compacted recycled materials in roadway areas; delineation, excavation and off-site disposal of TSCA-regulated PCBs contaminated soils associated with historical Askarel transformers and dioxin-contaminated soils associated with historical bleaching operations; and disposition of 1,000 tons of paper mill sludge encountered within an abandoned granite-walled sluiceway structure. Based on demonstration that Aroclor 1242 detected in sludge was associated with carbonless copy paper, the EPA considered the sludge as an Excluded Waste as defined at 761.3 and therefore not subject to TSCA. Based on these findings, 350 tons of excavated sludge (with elevated metals) was mechanically screened to reduce weight and transported to a Canadian landfill and remaining in-place sludge was stabilized in-situ with cement, in lieu of incineration.
Elliot Steinberg is a Vice President with Haley & Aldrich in Boston and has been with the firm for 22 years. Mr. Steinberg earned a BS in Civil Engineering from Northeastern University in 1975 and a MS in Civil Engineering from MIT in 1980. He is a registered Professional Engineer in Massachusetts and Maine, Licensed Site Professional in Massachusetts, and Past President of the LSP Association.
Mr. Steinberg’s career began as a geotechnical engineer and evolved with emergence of environmental regulations in the 1980s and 1990s. His current practice focuses on redevelopment of brownfields sites utilizing an integrated approach to effectively address the inter-related aspects of geotechnical design, construction, risk assessment, remediation and regulatory compliance facing these projects. Mr. Steinberg’s experience encompasses environmental site assessments under Massachusetts and other state regulations, federal EPA and TSCA rules, and ASTM; remedial investigation/feasibility studies; innovative remedial design and implementation including Dual-Phase Extraction of DNAPL in fractured bedrock and complex/sensitive geologic settings, permeable reactive iron barriers (PRB) walls and phytoremediation; soil management and treatment technologies for urban construction projects; and brownfields redevelopment including support to environmental insurance and purchase and sale negotiations. Mr. Steinberg participates with senior level Massachusetts regulators and professional society/industry organizations to positively influence environmental regulations and legislation that govern the practice.
As part of the closure of a former industrial site, detailed site investigations were conducted to assess sub-soil conditions associated with past operations and design a remedial alternative that will allow for the site redevelopment in the context of a sensitive use (ie typical uses like school, nursery, residential housing, hospital, etc...) in compliance with all the applicable regulatory requirements.
The site (total surface area of 10 ha) was divided up into grids of 15 x 15 m, with samples taken at every meter down to 14 meters stopping just above the water table. Overall, a total of 3,300 soil and groundwater samples were taken prior to the start of remediation works leading to over 200,000 analytical data points.
In order to organize the large volume of sub-soil quality data and to assess the trends of the concentrations of the contaminants of concern in different environmental compartments (soil, groundwater, vapours), a Geographical Information System (GIS) was set up.
This GIS system also incorporated georeferenced maps of the existing buildings and associated foundations, as well as the future redevelopment plans showing the new buildings and infrastructures.
The overlap of these plans and the subsoil data pinpointed areas where the presence of chlorinated solvents in soil was not compatible with the intended future site use.
A human health risk assessment module was integrated accordingly into the GIS in order to calculate input concentrations (averages, maxima, 90% percentile, etc.) for human exposure on site by direct contact or via the inhalation of vapours originating from soil or groundwater. The transfer from environmental media to indoor air was conducted using published equations such as Johnson & Ettinger and Volasoil. This module was used extensively to refine the human health risk analysis and the associated degree of uncertainty. It was found extremely effective in terms of focusing the excavation efforts to sensitive areas (as defined in the future redevelopment project) and reducing the overall remediation costs.
Thomas Perrieris a Senior Consultant at ENVIRON in France. Thomas has 10 years of experience in environmental consulting and research with specific expertise in risk assessment, contaminated sites management (characterization and remediation), litigation support and EHS auditing (compliance and due diligence). Thomas has conducted and managed projects for industrial clients, government agencies, and financial institutions in France, Europe and North Africa. Prior to joining ENVIRON in 2006, Thomas has worked 5 years in the nuclear domain for the different government agencies, conducting site assessment and research work on radioactive contaminated soils. He has worked on all aspects of human health risk assessments including evaluating analytical data, statistically analyzing data sets, calculating/modeling exposure point concentrations, developing human exposure criteria, estimating cancer risks and non-cancer health effects from exposure to contaminated media, developing site-specific cleanup levels and characterizing uncertainties associated with the French risk assessment methodology.
The Research Translation & Sustainability Core at the Arizona State University center for SUstainable Management of MIxTures (SUMMIT) establishes a new paradigm of research relevant to Superfund by addressing the three principal challenges that historically have inhibited the maturation of science to innovation: retrospection, reductionism, and disconnection. Retrospection refers to the backward-looking perspective that traditionally has characterized remediation. Reductionism refers to the understanding of contaminant effects and technologies exclusively in isolation from one another. Disconnection refers to the failure of science and technology advancement to directly inform the needs of stakeholders, decision- and policy-makers. To address these concerns, we establish sustainability as the cross-cutting theme of SUMMIT. Sustainability places the emphasis on looking forward, on a holistic perspective that seeks to understand the interaction of contaminants and technologies, and emphasizes the need for a broader contextual understanding of the social, economic and environmental issues that drive decisions in science, technology and policy at local and national scales. This presentation introduces the SUMMIT approach to sustainability and research translation and explains the organizing principles of the Center, including research projects that address specific needs at Superfund sites local to ASU in Tempe AZ.
Professor Matt Fraser is the Director of Research Development in the Global Institute of Sustainability (GIOS) at Arizona State University (ASU) as well as an Associate Professor in the School of Sustainability (SOS) at ASU. Prof. Fraser teaches courses in SOS related to energy and the environment, renewable energy, and the scientific basis for global environmental change. Dr. Fraser received his Bachelors of Science (with University Honors) in Chemical Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University and his Masters and Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering Science from Caltech. Prior to joining the School of Sustainability at ASU, Prof. Fraser was on the faculty of Rice University in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
USEPA has recently begun developing policies designed to promote “Green Remediation” in its environmental cleanup programs. The goal of the Green Remediation policies is to improve efforts to consider all environmental effects of remedies—both positive and negative—and to maximize the net environmental benefit of cleanups. In particular, Green Remediation policies encourage the minimization of the environmental footprint of a remedy, including minimizing energy use, water use and water quality impacts, air quality impacts, material consumption and waste generation. The environmental footprint of a remedy is typically quantified by calculating simple green remediation metrics, such as pounds of CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted, gallons of water used, and tons of waste generated. So far there has been little guidance available describing how to combine these green remediation metrics with the traditional evaluation criteria for remedial alternatives (e.g., CERCLA nine criteria).
One approach to quantitatively evaluating green remediation metrics is to perform a risk of remedy analysis. A risk of remedy analysis quantifies the human health and ecological risks resulting from remedy implementation, and compares those to the potential reduction in risk associated with the cleanup of a contaminated site. In some cases, the risks from implementing a remedy exceed the risks posed by the site to be cleaned up. In general, if there is no net reduction in risks, alternative remedies should be considered. The risk of a remedy can be evaluated using many of the same environmental parameters developed in an environmental footprint analysis. For example, if a remedy causes air emissions (e.g., NOx, PM, and air toxics) from trucks or electricity production, then there could be health effects associated with those emissions (e.g., asthma). Simple case studies are used to illustrate the risk of remedy approach and how it can be used to complement the evaluation of environmental footprints and encourage green remediation.
Christopher Stubbs is a senior manager in the Engineering/Geosciences group at ENVIRON International Corp. in Emeryville, CA. He is a PE and has a PhD in Hydrology and Water Resources Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), an MS in Technology and Policy from MIT, and a BA in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley. His work focuses on groundwater hydrology, chemical fate and transport, risk assessment, and risk-based decision-making.